Re: [pcp] pcp updates

[Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:57:46 +1100 (EST), Nathan Scott wrote:

 nscott> Are you expecting more attempts, or are we good to go for 3.1
 nscott> (which is planned for today).
It "works for me", unless Ken finds something else it should be all I
need for 3.1.

 nscott> The cache.c change looks to be low-medium-level risk & OK if
 nscott> it passes QA (I'll do another run this morning);
FWIW I've discussed it with Ken and it was the least worst option we
could come up with.

max